320 kbps Mp3's VS Wav's, can YOU tell the difference?

**PrinceOfDarkness** · 05-09-2007

Personally, I cant.

And i highly doubt MOST (i said most) of you can tell.
What audible difference is there??????

**kingartha** · 05-09-2007

LOL...when it gets to the point of being encoded at that fidelity, you might as well just leave it as a wav!

Just my 2 cents....

**JSINGLEZ33** · 05-09-2007

yeah in the highs (hi hats over heads, and very lows (808 etc..) ) use a wav!!

**dbu** · 05-09-2007

IMO the difference between a high bit rate mp3 and a wav file can be distinguished on a nice club system or monitoring chain pretty easily. Now in your car or your home stereo you may have some trouble.

**sleepy** · 05-09-2007

You can definitely tell the difference. Not being able to hear the difference is not due to similar quality between mp3 and wavs but lack of ear training and adequate monitoring system.

**PrinceOfDarkness** · 05-09-2007

so what difference am i supposed to hear?

**pj1s** · 05-09-2007

If the music you are making isn't coded at high bitrates to start with, you wont hear the difference... But the chain when producing is important. But it really the freq that you miss out on. Quite a few people even say most of its in the unconscious part of listening to music.

**DaGSpotSoldier** · 05-10-2007

Im thinkin if someone said check out this track, and you listened to it. If it was at 320, they wouldnt say, Hey, this sounds like its in MP3 format. Well not most people. However, My ears is pretty good. So I may hear that most of the air is gone.

**moses** · 05-10-2007

the difference is pretty obvious with a good monitoring system.

the mp3 version will loose:

- any depth and room (reverb) information
- realistic stereo imaging
- crispiness
- dynamic range
- bandwidth

and will introduce:

- huge amounts of aliasing
- huge amounts of quantization noise
- huge amounts of other non-harmonic distortion due to cheap encoders.

it's simple to distinguish them: the original file (or lossless data-compressed version) hhas depth, that means there a some events infront of you while other seem to be far away. the mp3 version of that file will sound very "flat" - the depth-dimension gets lost - and the sound is boring.

and if you still don't hear any difference, upgrade your monitoring system! (it just shows that your system is bad, everybody can hear it - but of course only with accurate monitoring)

**dvyce** · 05-10-2007

Originally Posted by DaGSpotSoldier

Im thinkin if someone said check out this track, and you listened to it. If it was at 320, they wouldnt say, Hey, this sounds like its in MP3 format. Well not most people. However, My ears is pretty good. So I may hear that most of the air is gone.

MP3's are fine for showing someone your track just so they can "check it out."

I can tell the difference between an MP3 and a WAV file, but if someone asks me to check out their track in MP3 format, I am not going to say "that sounds like an MP3" because it is not relevant to my checking out their track.

If I were mixing someones track and the snare sounds came from MP3 files, I would say "these snares sound like MP3's... you can't use these in the mix... they are screwing up the whole track" -- because in that situation, it would be relevant.

If I heard the final mixes you were preparing for manufacture of your CD and they were MP3's, I would say "these are MP3's... they sound like crap... you can't use these on your CD... give me the uncompressed versions." -- because in that situation it is relevant.

...and it is not like there is some "checklist" that you use to determing if something is an MP3... it is something you are able to determine through experience dealing with audio files. It is generally easy to recognize.

---Also, it is not that the average person can't tell the difference. The thing is that the average person doesn't have the knowledge or experience to verbalize the fact that what they hear is an MP3.

They can hear that the track does not sound as good as things off the CD's they buy, but they do not know that the reason is it being in a compressed format.

It is just like how all these beginning producers know that their music does not sound as good as what they hear on the radio... but they do not have the knowledge or experience or vocabulary to verbalize that the reason is because the mix lacks certain EQ, compressor, FX, panning, level, arrangement, composition, performance or gear related details... all they know is that the track sounds "off."

It is like if you ate a cake that was made using spoiled milk... you may know that something is wrong with that cake... but your lack of experience specifically tasting food made with spoiled milk prevents you from being able to express that the use of spoiled milk is what is making the cake taste strange. All you know is that it ain't the best cake you ever had.

...and you may eat that cake because you just want some cake and you figure that it ain't that bad... but in the end, that cake is gonna make you sick.